[PC-NCSG] ICANN 53 Constituency Day - Seeking Feedback for ICANN board

Fri Jul 10 12:42:36 EEST 2015

I actually think we may be spending too much time with "friendlies" and not enough time with the others. I had reasonably long conversations with Kuo-Wei and Asha and they don't know a heck of a lot about us. I also question whether some of our friendlies correctly interpret things: for example, the idea the Board would be open to a restructuring that would consolidate NC interests in one unit is so far from reality that I'm not sure how anyone could reasonably believe that. Strategically I also would prioritize members of the BGC: they are more important to us than other members on structural matters.

We did not take full advantage of the new structure. The Board was looking more for a conversation and we were playing, according to more than one of them, gotcha. I've been told the other groups warmed to the new structure and we did not. It doesn't matter whether this is true is not, that's the perception of some and in this case perception is a reality we need to deal with.

At the PC meeting Bill proposed new faces for our leads, something that really did not happen. I think that was a good idea. I also think we should use the opportunity less to tell the Board what to think and more to listen to what and why they think what they do. Conceive of it as a first date. Those usually go better when you listen to the other person and give her (or he, as the case may be) the chance to speak and explain instead of spending the time telling the person how great you are and what to think. Both sides need more humility and a desire to listen to the other. How you do that with folks like Chris on the Board and some of our strong voices on stage I do not know.

In terms of structure I think we may want to break the session down to three sortable parts with different people. Let's give the Board a chance to see the diversity of the NCSG rather than just telling them we are diverse. Question 1 have 4 of us at the table, short break, question 2 a different 4 and so on. Physically change the people in the hope of rekindling the interest of Board members. It's a long day and we're at the end of it. The CSG did something like this and I'm told it worked well. We also should make the seating more Board - NCSG - Board, instead of having some of us sitting together. And leave the PC's off...we can live without chat or email for an hour. This should be a strict rule for both sides.

Just some thoughts...

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 10, 2015, at 10:03 AM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> It would be good to send our draft questions to Markus, Wolfgang and maybe one or two other friendlies in advance of finalizing to get a sense how they?d be received etc.  Having a follow up breakfast on the Sunday or Monday might also be useful.  Somehow we have to change the dynamic, the seating wasn?t sufficient.  At the same time, we don?t want to exclude important questions just because someone might get their feathers ruffled for varying unpredictable reasons, but at least we could go into this more cluefully.
> 
> Bill
> 
>> On Jul 10, 2015, at 3:00 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Sam,
>> 
>> thanks for the comments.
>> we have usually the meeting in ICANN meeting Thursday with the GNSO elected board members and that is really productive. shall we have another breakfast or another kind of meeting with few board members instead of the cocktail ( which happens by rotation anyway).
>> 
>> @Others  please share your input, same for the thread about prioritisation.
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Rafik
>> 
>> 2015-07-10 4:50 GMT+09:00 Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca>:
>>> We have been discussing this in NPOC and my position on this is that the alcohol fueled receptions (large or small) are inferior to roundtable discussions face-to-face with two or three Board Members. As for the whole board session, that has the look and feel of a dog-and-pony show where everything is pro forma and there is no real dialogue, no matter how good is the question or comment.
>>> 
>>> I would prefer the 2-3 Board member face-to-face meetings, and reserve a cocktail party for the end-of-meetings ramp down. 
>>> 
>>> Sam
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On 2015-07-08 7:26 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>> 
>>>> we received this request for input about the joint session we had with the board in BA meeting.
>>>> 
>>>> We had also the opportunity to talk about when we met Bruce and Markus, getting some reactions about the meeting, the topics and how we may improve things.
>>>> 
>>>> I think there was agreement that we should work out better our questions/topics to avoid looking controversial (not sure how we can assess that), and trying to liaise with Markus first to hash out the topics and/or having pre-meeting confcall to prepare for the session. that means more work for us but it can also mean having a better outcome and being more action-oriented. 
>>>> 
>>>> we can comment about the format and the changes. my initial comment was that the board self-defeated the purpose of getting earlier the topics when it didn't respond till on month after receiving them and few days before the meeting. 
>>>> 
>>>> please share you thoughts and input that you think we should send to board.
>>>> 
>>>> Best,
>>>> 
>>>> Rafik 
>>>> 
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: Megan Bishop <megan.bishop at icann.org>
>>>> Date: 2015-07-09 4:54 GMT+09:00
>>>> Subject: ICANN 53 Constituency Day - Seeking Feedback
>>>> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>, "william.drake at uzh.ch" <william.drake at uzh.ch>, "rudi.vansnick at isoc.be" <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>
>>>> Cc: David Olive <david.olive at icann.org>
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Dear All,
>>>> 
>>>> Following on from the roundtable experiment at Constituency Day in Buenos Aires, the ICANN Board is interested to hear feedback from you and your groups on how the changes were received, and what areas can be improved upon.  Another element we?d like feedback on is the rotating schedule of informal cocktail receptions.  Please let us hear your feedback on that as well.  
>>>> 
>>>> I will collect all comments/suggestions received and send them on to the Board in preparation for ICANN 54 in Dublin.  
>>>> 
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>> Megan 
>>>> 
>>>> Megan Bishop
>>>> Board Support Coordinator
>>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>>> 
>>>> 12025 Waterfront Dr., Suite 300
>>>> Los Angeles, CA 90094
>>>> Mobile: +1-310-795-1894
>>>> Direct: +1-310-301-5808
>>>> 
>>>> One World. One Internet.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> 
>>> *--------------------------------------------*
>>> "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
>>> in an unjust state" -Confucius
>>> ----------------------------------------------
>>> Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)
>>> Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3
>>> YorkU email: Lanfran at Yorku.ca   Skype: slanfranco
>>> blog:  http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com
>>> Phone: 613 476-0429 cell: 416-816-2852
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150710/08d842c6/attachment-0001.html>